Bible Commentary (1871–1879 Edition) (continued)
All th-e Seed of Abranam KOMAXS IX. not the Oi 'ddrm of the Promwt,
[Bengei., Thoi-uck, Stuart, Olshausen, Piiilii>hi, AlFOKD, &(:.] 6. Not as titotigh tlie wor«l of Ciod had taken no«»e eftect—'hath fallen to the ground,' i.e., failed: cf. Luke 16. 17, Greek, for they ai-e not all Israel wliich are of Israel—better, ' for not all they which are of Israel are Israel.' Here the apostle enters upon the jjro/ound subject of Election, the treatment of which extends to the end of ch. 11.—q. d., 'Think not that I mourn over the total loss of Israel; for that would involve the failure of God's word to Abraham; but not all that belong to tlie natural seed, and go under the name of "Israel," are the I.srael of God's irrevocable choice.' The difficulties which encompass this subject lie not In the apostle's leaching, whicu is plain enough, but in the trutlis themselves, the evidence for which, taken by themselves, is overwhelming, lint whose perfect harmony is beyond human comprehension in the present state. Tlie great source of error here lies in hastily inferring [as Tholuck and others), from the apostle's taking up, at tlie close of this chapter, the calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of Israel, and contiiiuinof this subject through the two next chapters, that the Election treated of in the body of tliis chapter is national, not personal Election, and consequently is Election merely to religious advantaijes, not to eternal salvation. In that case, the argument of v. ti, with whicli the subject of Election opens, would be this: 'Tiie choice of Abraham and his seed lias not failed; because though Israel has been I'ejected, the Gentiles have taicea their place; and God has aright to choose what nation He will to the ijrivileges of His visible kingdom.' ISui so far from this, the Gentiles are not so much as mentioned at all till towards the close of tlie cliapter; and the argument ol 'his verse is, that ' all Israel is not rejected, but * only a pi.rtion of it, the remainder being iAe" Israel" whom God has chosen in the exercise of His sovereign right.' And that tills is a choice not to mere external privileges, but to eternal salvation, will abundantly appear from what follows. T-9. KeitSier, liecamsc tJ>ey arc the seed of Abraham, are titey all children—</. d., 'Not in tiie line of mere fleshly descent from Abraham does
KMisoof the words too tame to be endured : others unwarri-iilahly soften the sense of the word "accursed." But our Version gives the true import of the original ; and if i( be understood as the language rather of 'strong and indi.->tinct emotions than of definite ideas' [Hodge], expressing passionately how lie felt liis whole being swallowed up iu the salvation of his people, the difficulty will van-
Isli, and we shall be reminded of the similar idea so nobly expressed by Moses, Exodus 32.32. i. Wlio are IsraelvSee ch. 11.1; 2 Conntliians 11. 22; Philippians 3.-5. in %vIiom pertaineth (' whose is ) tUe adoption—It is true that, compared with the new economy, the old was a stale of minority and pupilage, and so far that of a bond-servant (Galatians i. 1-3) ; yet, compared witli the state of the surrounding heathen, the choice of Abraham and his seed wa.sa real .separation of tliem to be a Jfamilj/ of (Joel (Exo-
(Jus4. 22; Deuteronomy 32. (i; Isaiah 1.2; Jeremiaii 31.9; Hosfu 11.1; Mahiclii Hi), aiid tJue glory — that " glory of the Lord," or ' visible token of the Divine presence in the midst of them,' which rested on the ark and filled the tabernacle during all their wanderings in the wilderness ; v.iiicli in Jerusalem continued to be seen iu the tjilierniicle and temple, and only disappeared when, at the Captivity, tlie temple was demolished, and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. Thi.s was what the Jews called the " Hhckiita/i." and tlie covenants—" the covenants of promise" to which tlie Gentiles before Christ were " strangers" (.Kphesians 2. 12); meaning the one covenant witli Abraham in its successive renewals (see Galatians 3. IG, 17). and tlie giving of tUe law—from Mount Sinai, and tlie possession of it tliereafter, which the Jews justly deemed tlieir peculiar honour (Deuteronomy 2G. 18, lU; Psalm 147. lU, 20; ch. 2. 17). and tlie service [of GodJ—or, of tlie sanctuary; meaning the whole divinely-instituted religious service, iu tlie celebration of whicli tliey were brought so nigh unto Gotl. and tlic promises—the great Abraiiamic promises, successively unfold.-d, and whicli had their fulfilment only lu t.'lirist: SL-e Ilfbicws 7. U; Galatians 3. Ki, 21; Acts 20. U,
7. 5. Whose are tJie iatliers—here, probably, llie three great' fathers of tlie covenant—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — .ly whom God condescended to name Himself (Exodus tlie (•lection run; else Isiimael, Hagar's child, and even Keuuah's children, would be included, which they were not.' but (the true election are such of Abraham's seed as God unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in tliat promise), In Isaac lihall (hy seed be called—(Genesis 21.
3. ti, 13; Luke 20.37). and (most exalted privilege of all, and as suci), reserved to the last) of wlioiii as conccrntng tJie llesli (see on ch. 1. 3) Christ [camej (or, ' is ChrisL'j, who ill over all, Clod—rather, 'God over all.' blessed for ever. Amen—To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted: (1.) To place a period, eitlier after the words "concerning the flesh Christ came," rendering the next clause as a doxclogy to the Father—"God
12.) 10-13. And not only so; but when lle Jjccca, &c. It might be thought that there was a natural reason for pielerring tlie child of Saiah, as being Abraham's true and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah's maid, and to tlie children of Ketuiali, his second wife. But there could be no such reason in tlie case of Rebecca, I.saac's only wife; for tlie choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother and of the younger in preference to the elder, and befoxe either of them was born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of preference: and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God—"noi of works, but of J'/im that callwho is over all be blessed for ever;" or after the word "all"—thus, "Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed," ifcc. [EKA.SMirs, Locke, Fuirz-iCiiE, Mkyer, JoWETT, &c.j But it is fatal to this viev/, as even iSucinus admits, that iu other Scripture doxologies the word
", Bleaned" precedes the name of God on whom the b'lessing is invoked (tlius: "iSlessed be God," I'salm da. 3.5; "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel," Psalm 72.
etlt." li. AVhat shall we say tiien I Is there unrighteou.sness with God J God forbid—This is the first of two objections to the foregoing doctrine, tliat God chooses one ami rejects anotlier, not on account of their works, but purely in tlie exercise of His own good pleasure: 'This doctrine is inconsistent with IIlc jx'Mice of God.' The answer
18). Besides, any such doxology here would be ' unineanlug and frigid in t!ie extreme ;' the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even In connection with Christ's Incarnation. [Ai-t'OKii.] (2.) To transpose tlie words rendered ' who Is;' in which case the rendering would be, ' whose (i.e., the fathers ) is tjhrist according to the tlesh.' [Ckellius, Wiii.ston, Taylok, Whithy.J But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all M.S. authority ; as is also the conjecture of Gkotiu.s and others, that the word " God" should be omitted from the text. It remains then, that we liave hero no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israeli tish nation " as corveerniny Uie Jle.ih," Ue is in another r:spvel "God over all, blessed for ever." (In a Corinthians 11.31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered " wlio is," is used in the same sense ; and cf. ch.
to this objection extends to v. 19, where we have the second objection. 15. For he saitlt to Moses (Exodus 33.19),! will have mercy on wUom'I will have ('on whom I have') mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have (' on whom I have') compassion q. d., 'There can be no unriglrteousness in God's choosing whom Ha will, for to Moses He expressly claims the right to do so.' Yet it is worthy of notice that this is expressed in tho positive rather than the negative form: not, 'I will have marcy on none but whom I will;' but, 'I will liave mercy on whomsoevnI will.' 16. So then it in not of him tSiat willeth (hath the inward desire), nor of him tliat ruunetli (maketh active effort)—(ci. 1 Corinthians 9.il, 26; Philippians 2. IG; 3. H.) Both these are indispensable to
1.2.i, Greek.) In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur.
God hath Mercy upon whom He will. ROMANS IX. Tlte Culling of the Gentiles was Foretold, one text, while so many others meet ns which are of the same tenor; and even if we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge an omnipotent and omniscient God we cannot abate in the least degree from any of the difficulties whicli sucli texts make.' Be it observed, however, salvation, yoi salvation is owing to neitlioi', lint is purely "of God that sliowelli mercy." See on Pliilippians 2. 12
13," Work out, your own salvation with fear anil trembling: for it is God whicli, oi</ o/ IJis oivn f/ood pleasure, worketh in you both to ivill and to do." 17. For »l»e Scrlpttirts s:iit]k to Pliarnoh (observe here the light in which tliat if God, as the apostle teaches, expressly "designed to manifest His wrath, and to make His power (in tlie way of wrath) known," it could only be by punishing some, while He pardons others; and if the choice between the two classes was not to be founded, as our apostle al.so teaches, on their own doings but on God's good pleasure, tile .Scripture is viewed by the apostle). Even for this same (' this very') purpose have I raisert (' raised I') tliee up, &c.—The aposi le had showu that God claims the right to choose whom He will: here he shows by an example that God punishes whom He will. But 'God did not make Pharaoh wicked; He only forbore to make him jj;ood, l)y the exercise of special and altogether unmerited srace. [Hodge.] tUat I might (' may') show my power in titee —It was not that Pharaoh was worse than others that he was so dealt with, but 'in order that he might become a monument of the penal justice of God, and it was with a view to this that God provided tliat the evil which was in him should be manifested in this definite form.' [OLSHAU.SEN.] and that my name miglit f may ') be declared (' proclaimed ') in all tlie eartit— t.he decision behooved ultimately to rest with God. Yet, even in the necessary punishment of the wicked, as Hodge observes, so far from proceeding with undue severity, the apostle would have it remarked that God " endures with much long-sul Tering " those olijects of His righteous displeasure, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy—that 'glorious exuberance of Divine raercj- ' which was manifested in choosing and eternally arranging for the salvation of sinners. 34. even us, whom he hath called, &c. —rather, ' Whom he hath also called, even us,' i&c, in not only " afore preparing but in due time effectually " call-
' This is the principle on which all punishment is intlicted, that the true character of the Divine Lawgiver should be known. This is of all oljjects, where God is concerned, the highest and most important ; in itself the most wortliy, and in in;/ na." not of the .lews, Ac-better, 'not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.* Here for the its results the most beneflceat.' [Hodge.] 18. Tliercfore hath he—'So tlien he hath.' The result then is lliat He hatli mercy on wliom he will have mercy, and whom he will lie hardeneth—by judicially abandoning tliem to the hardening influence of sin itself (Psalm 81. U, 12; ch. 1.
first time in this chapter the calling of the Oenliles is introduced ; all before having respect, not to the substitution of the called Gentiles for the rejected Jews, but to the choice of one portion and the rejection of another of the same Israel. Had Israel's rejection been total, God's promise to Abraham would not have been fulfilled by the substitution of the Gentiles in their room; but Israel's re-
24. 2(), 28; Hebrews 3. 8, 13), and of the surrounding incentives to it (Matthew 24. 12; 1 Corintliians 15. 3S; 2ThessaIonians2. 17). 19. Objection second to the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty; Thou shalt say tlien nnto me. Why jection being only partial, the preservation of a "remnant," in which the promise was made good, was but " according to the election of grace." And now, for the first time, the apostle tells us that along with this elect remnant of Israel it Is God's purpose to "take out of the Geri-
(' Why tiien ' is tlie true reading) doth he yet find fault I for who liath resisted (' Who resisteth ') liis will I—7. d.,
' Tliis doctrine is incompatible with human rvspon.tihililij :' If God chooses and rejects, pardons and punishes, wliom He pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by Him, cannot help sinning and perishing? This olyection shows quite as conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to—that it is Election and Non-election tiles a people for His name" (Acts '2S. 14); and that subject, thus introduced, is now continued to the end of ch. 11. As iie snith also in Osee ('Hosea'), 1 will call them my peoj>le, wlilch were not my people ; and her beloved, wSkielt was not beloved—quoted, though not quite to the letter, from Hosea 2. 23, a passage relating inimedito eternal salvation prior to any difference of personal character; this is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated, and to this doctrine the olijeetion is plausil)Ie. What now is the apostle's ansv/er?
i.lely, not to the heathen, but to the kingdom of the ten tribes ; but since they had sunk to the level of the heathen, who were "not God's people,'' and in that sense "not beloved," the apostle legitimately applies it to the heathen,, as " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise" (so 1 Peter 2. 10). 3G. And (another quotation from H<isea 1. 10) it sliallrome to pass, that in tlie place where it was said unto them, \'e are not my people ; tliere shall they be called the ehlldren
It is twofold. First: 'It is irreverence and presumption in tlie crealure to arraign the Creator.' ^0, ^1. Nay but, O man, who art titou that repliest against God ! SItall the tiling formed say to him titat formed it. Why hast thou made ('didst thou make') me thus (Isaiah 45. 9)
Hath not the potter i>ower over tiie clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to disiionour !—
(' called sons') of the living God—The expression, ' in the place where . . . there,' seems designed only to give greater emphasis to the gracious change here announced, fioiy Divine exclusion to Divine admission to the privileges of the people of God. tn-'Z'J. Esaias also erieth {'But Isaiah cricth')—.an expression denoting a solemn testimony opi Mily borne (.lolin 1. 15; 7.2.8,37; 12.41; Acts
' Tlie olijection is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the relation between God and His sinful creatures; supposing that He Is under obligal ion toextend His grace to all, whereas He is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to His mercy; it is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. But it is to lie borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over his creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures: as he himself clearly intimates In the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator that he is answering, and he does so by showing that God Is under no obligation to give his grace to any, but is as sovereign as in lashloning the clay.' [Hodge.] Hut Necond: 'There is nothing unjust in sncli sovereignty.' !4!4, What If Uod, willing to sliow ('designing to manifesi ') bis wrath (His holy displi!asure .against sin), and to inalie liis power (to punish " ) known, endured witli miicli loiig-sulIV ring the vessels of wratii i.e., 'dcslineil to wrath;' just us " vessels of mer<;y," In the next verse, mean ' vessels destined to mercy;' compare Kphesians 2. .'!, "children of wrath." titted for «le»truc(ion— It is well remarked by BTUAitr tliat the 'dll Hculties which such statements involve are not to be got rid of by softening the language of
2!. 0; 21. in. concerulng Israel, Though the number of the children ('sons') of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a ('the') remnant (/. c, the elect remnant only) sitall be saved: for he will finish the work, and cut ('is finishing llie reckoning, and cutting') it short in righteousness ; l>ecause a short work (' reckoning') will the Iiord make upon the earth—Isaiah 10. "22, '23, as in the IjXX. The sense given to these words by the apostle may seem to diller from that intended by the propliet. But the sameness of sentiment in both places will at once appear, If we understand those words of the prophet, "the consumption dccn-ed shall overflow with rlglileousness," to mean that while n remnant of Israel should bO graciously spared to return from captivity, " the decreed consumption" of the impenitent majority should De "replete with righteousness," or iUustrionsly display (Jod's righteous vengeance against sin. The "short reckoning" sei Miis to mean I lie speedy completing of His word, both in cutting olf tlio one portion and saving tho